|
Continued from Part I
|
| |
S. Stidd (1871) – M. Svenson (1719)
[B14/10] Caro-Kann: Panov
Internet,1999
|
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3
| This is the basic position of the Panov-Botvinnik
attack. This is a sharp attacking line, in which play is usually
characterized either by White accepting an isolated d-pawn for active piece
play or by White’s playing c5 in an attempt to pass a pawn on the queenside
while Black counterattacks on the kingside. A third, extremely sharp,
option involves a temporary pawn sacrifice by Black in exchange for very
active piece play after 5...g6. |
| This is an inaccurate placement of this knight.
Normally this knight would go to c6. But how to punish it?
7.Bd3 gives up tempi after 7...dxc4 8.Bxc4 Nb6, although it still
might be a reasonable move. One would expect that playing 7.cxd5,
yielding positions from the Semi-Tarrasch in which Black invariably places
the QN on c6, would be strong, yet 2 of the 3 games with this move in ChessBase
were White losses! ChessBase also revealed that White had a 100%
score with 7.a3, but such a quiet move seemed suspicious to me. Again,
there are good transpositions to the Semi-Tarrasch if Black chooses to
continue that way, but after 7...Be7 Black seems to have transposed to
a more normal line of the Panov attack (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4
Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nf3 Be7) where Black has already managed to develop his
knight (albeit to an inferior square) while White has made a potentially
useful but relatively passive pawn move. I could find nothing completely
convincing after 7.a3, though again I certainly couldn’t say the move is
bad. Indeed, I did not exhaustively analyze any of these moves, because
it occurred to me that the previously unplayed... |
| ...was the solution to all my problems! The point of this move
is that if Black stays with the normal plan of 7...Be7, White can play
8.b4! and is already threatening the standard plan of creating a passed
pawn on the queenside, where the QN’s bad placement on d7 is a real problem.
When Black has played instead 6...Be7 this plan is considered weak, on
the basis of a 1980 correspondence game between Estrin and Borngasser.
After 6...Be7 7.c5 0-0 8.b4?! Ne4 9.Qc2 Nc6 10.b5 |
| Black has the strong sacrifice 10...Nxd4! 11.Nxd4
Bxc5 12.Nxe4 Bxd4 13.Nc3 Bd7, with compensation according to BCO2
and a big advantage according to NCO. I think the former assessment
is more accurate; Black’s plan of advancing his big center towards
White’s currently uncastled king is strong, but White is up a piece.
If instead of 10.b5 White tries to defend the b-pawn with 10.a3, 10...e5
gives Black the initiative without sacrificing. (This is another argument
against 7.a3; one thing Black’s QN does do just as well from d7 as from
c6 is support e5.) White can also try 13.Ng5 in this line, which
will keep this knight on the kingside to help defend but will also allow
Black to gain tempi as he throws his pawns forward faster. But with
the knight on d7 this sacrifice is not possible, so I should be able to
get away with setting up a strong bind on the queenside. |
| Presumably seeing all this, my opponent chooses
a more double-edged move, whose consequences I had to calculate very accurately
when I played 7.c5: |
| Black takes up the challenge! Mr. Svenson
is arguing that I have erred in advancing my c-pawn; he will try
to capture it by wasting a couple of moves with his knight. However,
this gives White all the time he needs to develop a winning attack with
his queen and minor pieces. |
| Black can also try 9...Qd6. In this case,
White should respond with the stunning 10.a3!, taking away the possibility
of Black removing pressure with 10...Qb4+ 11.Qxb4 Bxb4+. If Black
then plays 10...Nxc6, the pretty sacrifice 11.Bf4! decides matters, e.g.
11...b5 (11...Qxf4 loses a rook) 12.Bxb5 Qxf4 13.Bxc6+ Bd7 14.Ne5 Rd8 (managing
to save the rook) 15.Nb5 and Black cannot cope with the onslaught. |
| 10...Qxc6 loses immediately to 11.Ne5. |
| Preventing Black from exchanging queens, as in the
note to Black’s ninth. Here Mike had to withdraw from the tournament
due to Internet server problems (this was an email game), but he is now
completely lost. Best play for both sides would continue 11...Nxc6
(11...Ne4 12.Bf4 e5 and now either capture leads to a winning position
for White; a sample of the success of White’s strategy can be seen in the
line 13.Nxe5 g5 14.c7 Nd7 15.Nxa7 gxf4 [15...Rxa7 16.Qxa7 gxf4 17.Qa8 Nd6
18.Bb5! and wins] 16.Nxc8 Rxa4 17.Nxe7 followed by queening the c-pawn)
12.Bf4 Kd8 (desperation, but moving the light-squared bishop allows a decisive
check on c7 or d6, while 12...e5 is met by 13.dxe5 Kd8 14.Nd6 Bd7 15.Bb5
with an unbreakable bind) 13.Bc7+ Kd7 14.Ne5+ Nxe5 15.dxe5 Ne4 16.Rc1 Nc5 |
It looks like Black has almost broken the pressure, but one more trick
wins for White:
17.Nxa7+! Kxc7 (17...Nxa4 18.Bb5#) 18.Qc6+ Kd8 19.Qxa8 Qb7 20.Qxc8+
Qxc8
21.Nxc8 Kxc8 22.b4, leaving White up a rook. I must admit that
I had not seen all the way to this final queen sacrifice when playing 7.c5!,
but I did feel (with justification, as Fritz helped me show after the game)
that the tremendous lead in development and queenside pressure that White
gets in these positions was more than enough to justify the potential loss
of the c-pawn. |
|
|
S. Stidd (1871) – F. Siewerdt (1925)
[B82/21] Sicilian: Scheveningen (Matanovic)
Internet,1999
|
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.f4
| This system is sometimes called the Tal Attack after
the famous 10th and decisive game of the 1965 Bled candidates’ match which
Tal won against Larsen. Their game actually went 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6
3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3, leading to dangerous
attacking positions for White which NCO now regards as advantageous
in every line, though then the system was almost completely unexplored.
Perhaps the name “Tal Attack” should be reserved for those lines in which
the queen actually gets to f3, but in any event the name is more interesting
then “Sicilian Scheveningen with 6 f4,” for example. |
| Moving this pawn a second time in the first seven
moves ought to be suspect, but in fact Black gets good play after this
move and it is difficult to refute. |
| This is the preferred continuation of both BCO2
and NCO. BCO2 claims equality for Black after both
8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Bc4 Ng4 10.Bd2 exf4 11.Bxf4 Be7 12.Qf3 0-0 13.0-0 Bf6 (Hubner-Andersson,
Bugojno 1982) and 8.Nde2 Be7 9.Qd2 a6 10.h3 b5 11.Ng3 Qa5 12.Be2
exf4 13.Bxf4 Be6 14.0-0 0-0 (Sibarevic-Andersson, Banja Luka 1978). |
| Spassky played this move against Larsen at Tilburg
in 1981. I have to say that I don’t trust it; undeveloping a piece
like this is very provocative, and even aside from the possibility of a
direct refutation, Black can try to gain time with simple developing responses
like 9...Be7. The best move here now is considered to be 9.Qd2.
Black can continue with ...g6 or ...Be7, though these are both supposed
to be better for White, but the main line is 9...Nxe3 10.Qxe3 exf4 11.Qxf4
Be6 12.0-0-0. The ‘latest word’ on this variation is supposed to
be Svidler’s win over Andrei Sokolov in the 1994 Russian Championship,
which continued 12...Be7 13.Nd5 (with a plus for White according to NCO)
and saw Svidler easily realize the plan of neutralizing Black’s counterplay,
doubling rooks on the d-file, and winning the d-pawn and eventually the
game. I, however, managed to develop a certain paranoia about a different
response, 12...Qa5, which has led to several draws and which I had no clear
idea how to handle. 13.Ng5? may be a mistake because of the wild
variation 13...Bxa2 14.Nxa2 Qxa2 15.Bc4 Qxc4 16.b3 Nd4! 17.Rxd4 (17.bxc4
Ne2+ wins the queen back and hence a piece) 17...Qc7, when White has some
initiative for his pawn but nothing more. If Black doesn’t want to
risk this wildness, 13.Ng5 Be7 14.Nxe6 fxe6, as played in a 1993 Bundesliga
game between Heissler and Vogt, doesn’t seem all that bad for Black either,
since he has e5 for his queen and knight. 13.Nd4 Be7 14.Nxe6 fxe6
is the same thing. Certainly White is not in danger in these lines,
but they looked somehow drawish, and I really wanted to win this game,
having lost to Frank in our last encounter, on the Black side of an extremely
wild King’s Gambit. |
| BCO2 recommends instead 9.Bd7 exf4 10.Bxf4,
but there is a problem: Black can play 9...Qb6. After 10.Qe2
Qxb2 11.Rb1 Qa3 White won in a game Levitina-Fomina from the 1981 Russian
Women’s Championship, but I was afraid of the hyper-materialistic 11...Qxc2,
after which I can see neither a way to trap Black’s queen nor any easy
way to get castled and start an attack. White’s queenside is decimated
and his king is stuck in the middle. I know it looks dangerous, but
where is the refutation? On the other hand, after 9.Bc1 Qb6 10.Qd2
exf4 11.Nd5 Qd8 12.Qxf4 I prefer white. Finally, there is nothing
in the databases besides 9...exf4 in response to 9.Bc1, so if Frank wanted
to play something new, he would be completely on his own. |
| After two weeks of contemplation, Frank finally
acquiesces to the theoretical continuation. |
| 10...Qb6 really doesn’t work here; after 11.Qd2
Qxb2 12.Rb1 Qa3 13.Nb5 Qxa2 14.Rd1 Black has two pawns, but his position
is about to get ripped to pieces. |
| This move is probably not the best; Frank’s
play in the game shows what is wrong with it. According to BCO2
I should be better after 11...0-0 12.Qd2 Nge5 13.Bb3 Bg4 14.Rf1, but there
is an improvement... |
| The Spassky-Larsen game I had been following up
to here continued 11.Qd2, which BCO2 rated as unclear after 11...Be6
12.0-0-0 0-0 13.h3 Nge5. However, I think this may be the better
continuation; Spassky did not plant his knight on d5 until the 17th
move, and it’s possible that by putting it there earlier, with the idea
of trading off the bishop on e7 and laying siege to the d-pawn a la
Svidler, White could gain an advantage. |
12...Be6!
| This move gives Black something close to complete
equality, and is substantially better than BCO2’s 12...Nge5.
After 13.Nd5? Nge5 14.Bb3 Bh4+ 15.Nxh4 Qxh4+ 16.Qf2 Qxf2 17.Kxf2 Nd4 Black
is better, and the game continuation, the only other reasonable one I could
find, is drawish. |
| Black has simplified the position and given White
doubled b-pawns; the only thing White has to show for it is a bishop and
a pawn on e4 which stands better than its counterpart on d6. I determined
here that my only winning chances lay in exploiting my bishop in an open
position in an endgame, and so I played the first new move of the game... |
| ...with the object of simplifying still further to enhance the strength
of my bishop and perhaps to exploit the half-open a-file with my rooks.
In a game from the 1997 Chigorin Memorial, Smikovski tried to keep things
in the middlegame against Seeman with 18.Qd3, but after 18...Qb6+ 19.Be3
Qc7 20.Bd4 not only did Seeman manage to draw with 20...Ng4, but he could
have played the simpler and stronger 20...Ne5 as well, creating a position
with an open d-file and not much chance of advantage for either side after
a minor piece trade on e5. |
| This surprised me. After 20...Nxe5 21.Bxe5
Ng4 22.Bd4 a6 White has no advantage other than that of bishop vs. knight.
Now in addition Black will have two isolated pawns on the queenside. |
| This is forced; 21...Rxe1 fails to 22.Nxd8 Rxf1+
23.Kxf1 Nxf4 24.Nxb7, a won knight ending for White on account of his extra
pawn and 3-1 queenside majority. |
| I thought I should go for something more than 22.Rxe8+
Rxe8 23.Bd2 Re2 24.Re1 Rxe1+ 25.Bxe1 f5 26.Kf2 g5 27.c4 Nf6, where Black’s
knight can post itself strongly on e4 and his kingside majority is getting
active. |
| Again, after 23.Rxe8+ Black is getting off too easily;
after e.g. 23...Nxe8 24.Be3 a6 25.Ra1 Ra8 White is better, but there is
lots of work left to be done and Black may be able to defend. |
| With one pair of rooks off, though, I’m happy to
see the other go; this is the ending I was aiming for from move 18. |
| I think this move order is the most accurate.
After 27.c4 Black can try to set up a fortress with 27...f5! 28.Be3 a6
29.Kf3 Ne6. In this position Black controls all the entry squares
to his position except on the a-file, and his pawns are well placed on
light squares where my bishop can’t get at them. Moreover, if I try
to run my king over to the a-file, Black’s kingside majority becomes a
real asset for him. Note that move order is crucial for Black here;
after the more obvious 27...Ne6 28.Be3, both 28...c5 and 28...a6 can be
met with 29.g4!, ensuring that entry squares for my more active king remain
because Black cannot establish a pawn on f5. (29...g6 30.g5; 29...h6
30.h4.) |
| This blunder is very close to losing on the spot;
the Black knight becomes entangled on my queenside. 27...a6 was preferable,
with an advantage for White but plenty of work left to be done. |
28.c4 Na3 29.c3 Nb1
| Watch the knight get buried deeper and deeper in
my position. The alternate plan of playing 29...Nc2 and racing the
f-pawn fails to 30.Bxa7 f5 31.Ke2 Na1 (or 31...f4 32.Kd2 Na1 33.b4 g5 34.Kc1
Nb3+ 35.Kc2 Na1+ 36.Kb2 g4 37.Kxa1 f3 38.gxf3 gxf3) 32.b4 Nc2 33.Kd2 Na3
34.Kd3 Nb1 35.Kc2 Na3+ 36.Kb3 Nb1 37.Be3 g5 38.g3. Further,
Black no longer has time to protect the pawn with 29...a6, since then the
knight cannot escape: 30.Ke2 Nc2 31.Bb6 Na1 (31...Na3 32.Kd2) 32.Kd1 a5
(32...Nxb3 33.Kc2 Na1+ 34.Kb2) 33.Bxa5 Nxb3 34.Bb6. Finally, if Black
tries to break up my pawn structure with a7-a5-a4, the passed a-pawn I
get will decide: 29...a5 30.Ke2 a4 31.bxa4 Nxc4 32.Kd3 Nb2+ 33.Kc2 Nc4
(33...Nxa4 34 Kb3 again traps the knight) 34.Bc5 f5 35.Kb3 Ne5 36.a5 Nd7
37 Bd6 and the a-pawn cannot be stopped. |
| 32.Bd2 fails to trap the knight after 32...c5, although
32.Kd4 Nb4 33.Kc5 Nc2 34 Bf2 seems playable as well. |
| Here Frank resigned, since after his beleaguered
knight moves to b4 or c7 I will play Kd6, Bc5 (if necessary), and win the
pawn on c6, creating a powerful advanced pair of passed pawns on the queenside
that will decide matters long before anything gets going on the kingside.
This game proves once again that there is no substitute for an active king
in the endgame, and that bishops really do have great power over knights
in open positions. This win over Frank gave me my first victory in
a postal tournament (I have since won one other). |
|
|
E. Arnold (1856) – S. Stidd (1973)
[A34/05] English: Symmetrical
Internet,1999-2000
|
1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 e6 4.e4
| This move already takes us off the normal paths
of the English. White establishes a big center right away even though
he knows that he cannot restrain ...d5, the argument being that because
Black has already played ...e6 it is a waste of time for him to play ...e5
and achieve what would otherwise be almost guaranteed equality in a blocked
position. |
| Because White’s pawns on e4 and c4 do not restrain
Black’s ...d5, this is probably a wasted move. Eric, an excellent
maneuvering player, wants to get a closed position, but I do not think
that this system in general is the way to go about it. The logical
way to play this system for White is to develop pieces and wait for an
opportune moment to get in d4, as in the game Ivanchuk-Anand from the 1992
Olympiad in Manila, which continued 5.Be2 d5 6.exd5 exd5 7.d4 Be7 8.Be3
cxd4 9.Nxd4 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 dxc4 11.Qxd8+ Bxd8 12.Bxc4 0-0 13.0-0 Bd7 14.Rfd1,
with a small advantage according to NCO. |
| Black has numerous options here because of White’s
quiet opening. ChessBase showed that this move was chosen by GM’s
Michael Rohde and Ognjen Cvitan in games played in 1993 against IM Jay
Bonin and Zelimir Smuk respectively, both Black wins. I liked the
move because it prevents White from playing Bf4 and opens up the possibility
of playing a Hedgehog-type position, as Rohde did in his game. At
the time I was attracted to the familiar Black fantasy of getting to Hedgehog-type
positions via the Taimanov Sicilian, the Queen’s Indian Defense, and the
Symmetrical English, and so I wanted to play them whenever I could. |
| Against Rohde, Bonin tried to argue that 5...Qc7
and 6...a6 were too slow and took a second move with the d-pawn by playing
7.d4. Rohde’s rebuttal is elegant and instructive: the game
continued 7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Bd6! (preventing f4 and working the
bishop towards e5) 10.Be3 0-0 11.Rc1 Be5 12.Qd3 b6 (turning the position
into a very nice Hedgehog for Black) 13.Bf3 Bb7 14.Na4? (this plan almost
never works against a Hedgehog – I first learned this the hard way over
the board against Chicago master Jim Marshall on the White side of a Taimanov
Sicilian) 14...Bc6! 15.Nxb6 Rb8 16.c5 Bxb2 17.Rb1 Be5 18.Bd4 Bb5 (putting
the question to the queen and insuring that White will never castle) 19.Qc3
Bxd4 20.Qxd4 e5! 21.Qe3 d6 (now the support point for the knight is undermined)
22.cxd6 Qxd6 (22...Qxb6 is not bad either, but it does not win a piece:
White can play 23.Qxb6 Rxb6 24.a4) 23.Nd5 Nxd5 24.exd5 e4! 25.Be2 (25.Bxe4
meets with disaster after 25...f5 and 26...Re1) 25...Bxe2 26.Kxe2 Qxd5
and Black is up a pawn with an overwhelming position. Bonin resigned
in short order after 27.Rhd1 Qxa2+. |
| Now I’m really committing myself to playing a Hedgehog.
(The Hedgehog is a structure, not a move order, which Black can get to
in a variety of ways and in response to a variety of White plans.)
This is actually the first new move of the game, deviating from Lars Schandorff’s
7...Ng4 against T. Christensen at Hillerod, 1995, which led to a fairly
quick draw. With Eric setting up so slowly, though, I had little
fear of getting blown out of the water. |
| Is this an error? It hardly seems fair to
call it one in the current position, but the fact is that it is almost
impossible to win the b6 pawn without suffering in Hedgehog structures. |
| Preparing to defend the b-pawn with 10...Ba8 in
the event of 10.Qb3. I wasn’t attracted to 9...Be7 10.Qb3 Bd8, and
in addition after 9...Be7 White can try 10.b4 d6 11.Rb1. |
| 11...Bd6 is interesting as well, but I was fixated
already at this point in playing d7-d5 in one move, opening the position
for my pieces and saving time over the more typical d7-d6-d5 that is often
played in the Hedgehog. I had just gotten Mihai Suba’s wonderful
book Dynamic Chess Strategy before playing this game, and was looking
for any opportunity to break with ...d5 or ...b5, Black’s constant ‘positional
threats’ in the Hedgehog, as Suba teaches. It seemed as though it
must be even better if I could play one of these pawn breaks in one step
rather than two. Now this thinking strikes me as a little superficial;
Black wants to get something concrete out of these thrusts, and he is probably
not in any danger, so it may be better to simply play ...d6 and wait patiently
for an exploitable blunder by White before breaking the position open with
one of these two pawns. Still 11...Be7 is a fine move, since it leaves
the option of either of these open. |
| Here Fritz prefers the slower strategy, playing
13...d6 with the suggested follow-up 14.f3 Nd7 15.Nc3 Bf6 16.Ne2.
This looks fine for Black, but I was going to play ...d5 come hell or high
water. The point of playing 13...Rfd8 is not only to support this
pawn thrust but to allow my knight to come back to e8 (in the event of
White playing e5) without trapping my rook on f8. |
| Black has his classic Hedgehog structure, and now
it is time for... |
| 16.exd5 is met strongly by 16...Na5 17.Qc2 Nxd5
18.Bxd5 Rxd5, where White’s backward and isolated d-pawn and Black’s more
active pieces give the second player the edge. |
| This starts a series of moves rearranging my pieces
which are all possible, in true Hedgehog style, on the basis of tricky
tactics which protect the apparently ‘hanging’ pawns. My knight wants
to get to e6 via c7, so my queen needs to get off that square. The
first point is that 18.Nxb6 can be met by 18...Qa7, winning two knights
and the initiative for rook and pawn. |
| Eric once again correctly refrains from capturing
on b6. Now after 19.Nxb6? Rxb6! is possible because the Nc7 holds
the pawn on a6; after 20.Qxb6 Rb8 the queen is trapped, and the most White
can do from there is complicate matters with 21.Bg4 Qd8 22.Bxc5 Rxb6 23.Bxb6
Qb8 24.Bxc7 Qxc7 25.Bf3. 19.d4 c4 20.Qd1 Nb4 is also good for Black. |
20.Nxb6?
| Now with not one but two of my pawns “hanging,”
Eric finally cracks. This capture is still incorrect. Since
I’ve made four of my last five moves with this knight, White is probably
best advised to follow suit and play 20.Ne2 here, keeping my knights out
of d4. The aggressive-looking 20.f5? is not a real option, since
after 20...Ned4 21.Bxd4 (or 21.Qxd5 Qc7 22.Qc4 Nxe5 23.Bg3 b5) 21...Nxd4
22.Qd1 b5 traps the knight on a4. But most amazingly, all three pawn
captures are incorrect! 20.Nxd5 is met by 20...Ncd4 21.Bxd4 (or 21.Ndxb6
Qa7 22.Qd1 Bxf3 23.gxf3 Nxf4! (“watch Black’s pieces spring to life,” as
someone once said about the Hedgehog) 24.Bxd4 Rxd4 and if White now tries
to save the knight by 25.Nc4 there follows 25...Nxd3 which not only
restores material equality but forces white to lose the exchange after
26.b3 or a piece or more after 26.Rc3 Nxb2) 21...Nxd4 22.Naxb6 (22.Ndxb6
Qa7 23.Qd1 Nxf3+ 24.gxf3 Rxb6 25.Nxb6 Qxb6 is equal in terms of material,
but not for long: White’s exposed king will come under attack, and
he will lose at least one or two pawns just trying to cope with immediate
threats like ...Qxb2, ...Qg6+ and ...Rxd3, ...c4+ and R or cxd3, and so
on) 22...Bxd5 23.Bxd5 Qf5 24.Bxf7+ Qxf7 25.Qxf7+ Kxf7 26.Nc4 Ne2+ 27.Kh1
Nxc1 28.Rxc1 and Black, with a rook for three pawns, has a won game.
20.Bxd5, on the other hand, can be countered simply by 20...Na5 (20...Ncd4
probably works as well and may even be better, along lines similar to what
we have seen) 21.Nxb6 Qa7, when Black gets a piece for two pawns.
The capture of the b-pawn, on the other hand, can be dealt with as in the
game: |
| The only move, but it takes care of everything.
An attack on the queen is combined with opening the long diagonal for my
bishop, and Eric does not have quite enough to defend against all the threats. |
| Other moves are no better. 22.Nxe7+ Qxe7 23.Bxd4
Nxd4 drops a piece for two pawns, while 22.Qd1 Nxf3+ 23.gxf3 (23.Qxf3 Rxb6
24.Nxe7+ Qxe7 again leaves White a piece up, and if White tries the aggressive
continuation 25.Qg4 Rxd3 26.f5?, then 26...Rb4 wins) 23...Bxd5 24.Nxd5
Rxd5 is the same old story in terms of material and Black’s rooks are strongly
placed for anything that might follow. |
| 22...Nxf3+, as in some of the variations we have
already examined, is not bad here or subsequently, but I want to keep a
monster knight on d4, with an eye towards ...Ne2+, winning back the exchange,
unless I am forced to do otherwise. |
| There is no way out of this mess for White; 23.Nxb6
Bxf3 24.Bxd4 Nxd4 transposes to the game, while 23.Nxe7+ Qxe7 24.Bxa8 Ne2+
25.Kh1 Nxc1 again leaves Black up a rook for some change. |
| More accurate than 24...Qxb6 25.Bxa8 Ne2+ 26.Kh1
Nxc1 27.Bd5 Ne2 28.Bxf7+ Kh8 in which White has three pawns for the piece
and a passed pawn on e5. |
| If White tries to complicate matters with 25.Nc8!?,
Black can still keep an advantage with 25...Rxc8 26.Qxd4 Bxg2! (Fritz’
move; I had only considered 26...cxd4 27.Rxc8+ Bf8 28.Rxf3 Qb6, which is
also good enough to win) 27.Rf2 cxd4 28.Rxc8+ Bf8 29.Rxg2 Qb7, followed
by 30...Qf3 and the win of the d-pawn. |
| 26.Kf2 Nxc1 27.Nc8 (27.Qxc1 Qxb6) 27...Nxd3+ 28.Qxd3
Rxc8 is just a better version of the game. |
| The dust has settled, and Black, with a piece for
two pawns, is much better. |
| I don't particularly like this move; my c-pawn
is strongly defended, and White, down material, can’t afford to play passively.
Better was 29.Rg1, as Eric plays on the next move anyway, so as to support
his one real possibility for active play - advancing the e- and f-pawns
towards my king. |
| This is what the pros call ‘consolidating your advantage’
- I retain the bishop and defend g7. |
| White admits that he has wasted a move, but possibilities
like 30.Rc4 Qd7 31.Ne3 Qh3 are worse. |
| Now everything holds together, and Black, with a
piece for two pawns, can be considered clearly winning. I needed
to avoid continuations like 30...Qd7 31.Nf6+ Kh8 32.Qxh7#, though, and
30...g6 31.Nf6+ Kh8 was not appealing either. |
| I had expected 32.Rg3 Nf5 33.Rg5 g6 34.Rg1 Qxd3
35.Rd1 Qxe4 36.fxe4 Rxd1+ 37.Nxd1 Nd4 with a technical endgame win to follow. |
| Blockading the potentially dangerous f-pawn and
threatening to take on d3. |
| Now the queen has been chased into the far corner
of the board while White's monarch helplessly awaits his doom. |
| 37.Kg1 or 37.Kh1 is met by 37...Qh3. |
| Everything wins now, but this keeps the knight in
the neighborhood of the king. |
| Here Eric resigned, because leaving the knight on
f2 causes him to lose another piece, while saving the knight gets his king
run out into the open with mate to follow: 43.Ng4 Qg1+ 44.Kh3 Qf1+ 45.Kh4
Nf5+ 46.Kg5 g6 47.Nf6+ Kg7 48.Nd7 h6+ 49.Kg4 Qg2#, or or 43.Ne4 Qg1+ 44.Kh4
Qxh2+ 45.Kg5 Qh6#. |
|
|
© 2000 Sean
Stidd
|
|
